Post by beaudro on Jul 21, 2011 14:06:02 GMT -5
PA, I think this might be a whole new topic. I'll try not to write 4 pages of this...
How good were original buckskins? I think thats basically a good question. In all honesty I'll talk myself into believing that an Indian woman left some grain and membrane on her finished buckskin. I really talk myself into believing that after 2 hours of graining and I'm still working on the neck area. Seems like I'm all gung-ho at it when I start, I'm always going to work the most perfect hide,, but I normally end up leaving a tiger stripe or two on my hides.
I'm fortunate enough to live near several good native museums, and I've seen many originals that date back to the mid 1800's , dresses, shirts, leggings, mocs, and a few painted calendars.
It's impossible to judge with any accuracy what they were like originally. If there was any grain layer left on these it's covered in quill , beads, or has worn off. I look for holes that were sewn up, but the leather was torn later and it's hard to say the hide was sewn before becoming a garment.
I do think some of the buffalo robes were near perfect , but they could have been worked by the more advanced woman of the tanning societies and made for the most important person of their tribe, not something just made for utility purposes.
There were hundreds of tribes, and each different in their ways of doing things. Many had guilds or societies , formed to organize their own industry of tanning. Obviously some were more advanced than others, and this leaves the less advanced ones to produce a hide that could have grain or membrane left on the hide. In other words, there is too much individualism with this many people to say one way or another.
My opinion would have to be that some hides were worked very crude , others were amazingly perfect. It all depends on who, what, when and where. Native cultures are even more diverse than white cultures were.
Some hides were left very stiff even , near green if I recall correctly. As long as they served a purpose they were good enough. I can use this for an example perhaps.
When an Indian woman in her younger marriage tanned hides for her own family many times the husband got the good stuff. He was the proud warrior who would not have a wife dressing him in shoddy buckskin. The children often got seconds, and she might have got nothing left but the hocks to make her little hock bag. Soon she would get better at tanning and be able to supply the whole family with better buckskin, but it would take time for her to learn what she could get away with and know where to make sacrifices in the art of tanning. Her whole life was spent tanning hides.
Hides for trading with the whites is different. It wasn't a family affair , now we have competition and commerce. The hides would always be sold , but what could you get for them is the problem.
These hides were made like community effort , more than one family is trying to finish hides so they can trade for tools, or lead, knives, etc.. these often are shared among families , a simple hoe, or kettle would be shared by many families as a group.
The hides must be of a quality to make decent clothing for the trappers, or they might get only 1 or 2 fish hooks. But then again, the whites might attempt to trade very little anyway. I've never seen hides turned down for being of poor quality. They can be used for mocs anytime.
I think there was a mix of each, probably more utility than anything else. But perfect hides may have been desired to keep a social standing among the guilds, and among the whites trying to own the best of clothing. I also think some compared the western buckskin to the English leather clothing, which was amazingly perfect and worn by the wealthiest of people. Not just English, but many of the easterners wore buckskin as well, much of it was a high quality. In other words, a white company employee may turn down a garment made of poor buckskin because he is familiar with high quality leather from another place.
whoops, i wrote too much again.
How good were original buckskins? I think thats basically a good question. In all honesty I'll talk myself into believing that an Indian woman left some grain and membrane on her finished buckskin. I really talk myself into believing that after 2 hours of graining and I'm still working on the neck area. Seems like I'm all gung-ho at it when I start, I'm always going to work the most perfect hide,, but I normally end up leaving a tiger stripe or two on my hides.
I'm fortunate enough to live near several good native museums, and I've seen many originals that date back to the mid 1800's , dresses, shirts, leggings, mocs, and a few painted calendars.
It's impossible to judge with any accuracy what they were like originally. If there was any grain layer left on these it's covered in quill , beads, or has worn off. I look for holes that were sewn up, but the leather was torn later and it's hard to say the hide was sewn before becoming a garment.
I do think some of the buffalo robes were near perfect , but they could have been worked by the more advanced woman of the tanning societies and made for the most important person of their tribe, not something just made for utility purposes.
There were hundreds of tribes, and each different in their ways of doing things. Many had guilds or societies , formed to organize their own industry of tanning. Obviously some were more advanced than others, and this leaves the less advanced ones to produce a hide that could have grain or membrane left on the hide. In other words, there is too much individualism with this many people to say one way or another.
My opinion would have to be that some hides were worked very crude , others were amazingly perfect. It all depends on who, what, when and where. Native cultures are even more diverse than white cultures were.
Some hides were left very stiff even , near green if I recall correctly. As long as they served a purpose they were good enough. I can use this for an example perhaps.
When an Indian woman in her younger marriage tanned hides for her own family many times the husband got the good stuff. He was the proud warrior who would not have a wife dressing him in shoddy buckskin. The children often got seconds, and she might have got nothing left but the hocks to make her little hock bag. Soon she would get better at tanning and be able to supply the whole family with better buckskin, but it would take time for her to learn what she could get away with and know where to make sacrifices in the art of tanning. Her whole life was spent tanning hides.
Hides for trading with the whites is different. It wasn't a family affair , now we have competition and commerce. The hides would always be sold , but what could you get for them is the problem.
These hides were made like community effort , more than one family is trying to finish hides so they can trade for tools, or lead, knives, etc.. these often are shared among families , a simple hoe, or kettle would be shared by many families as a group.
The hides must be of a quality to make decent clothing for the trappers, or they might get only 1 or 2 fish hooks. But then again, the whites might attempt to trade very little anyway. I've never seen hides turned down for being of poor quality. They can be used for mocs anytime.
I think there was a mix of each, probably more utility than anything else. But perfect hides may have been desired to keep a social standing among the guilds, and among the whites trying to own the best of clothing. I also think some compared the western buckskin to the English leather clothing, which was amazingly perfect and worn by the wealthiest of people. Not just English, but many of the easterners wore buckskin as well, much of it was a high quality. In other words, a white company employee may turn down a garment made of poor buckskin because he is familiar with high quality leather from another place.
whoops, i wrote too much again.